[OT] Warcraft III

[Psionicist]

I've gotten stuck in the Undead campaign. I believe it's the last level, since it's one of those "survive for 30 minutes" things.

I hate those.

The last three times I played, I made it to the final 15 seconds before being overrun. Now that they've done the 1.03 tweaking, I'll have to see if it's better, or worse.

And I haven't even considered playing online yet. I've had my butt handed to me enough times in StarCraft to avoid it.

Build a whole lot of towers. I had 7 upgraded ziggurats above and 7 to the right of the lich, as well as a whole bunch of em in the base. When I completed the level, I had exactly one tower left. It's all about towers.

Build lots of ghouls too, cannon food. Don't bother building frost wyrms, it's not worth it in the long run.

 

[Tsyr]

I'm not terribly impressed with War 3, to be honest. It's not BAD exactly, it just doesn't... I dunno... "do it" for me.

Incidently, if you don't think any strategy game allows someone to take on multiple of players and have a chance of winning regardless of the skill differences?

Try Homeworld. You might change your mind.

Though to an extent, I mean, just be reasonable. 1 on 7? You SHOULDN'T be able to win that, really. Those odds are WAAAAY too unbalanced.

 

[Erekose]

Just bought Warcraft 3 - I was successfully lured into a 3 games for the price of 2 deal! (The other two games were Medieval Total War and Unreal Tournament 2003.)

I haven't progressed very far into it but it seems like a nice halfway house from a PC RPG and a strategy game.

 

[Bagpuss]

Just bought Warcraft 3 - I was successfully lured into a 3 games for the price of 2 deal! (The other two games were Medieval Total War and Unreal Tournament 2003.)

Nice set of games there, don't forget to pause the games to eat food on occasions.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Well, the bottom line is that none of these so-called strategy games involve much strategy at all. There is a limit not only to how good you can be, but to the options availible to you for achieving victory. 1 player can never beat out 7 others all working against him, which is pretty ridiculous for a strategy game.

[SNIP]

I know there are people who make use of some more complex ideas in these games and give them funny names like tactical aggression or tactical adaptation, but it pretty much comes down to micromanagement, scouting and adapting, tactical or no.

This is exactly why I don't like playing online. There IS a certain amount of strategy involved, but after a certain point, it becomes all twitch reflexes. Micromanagement, IMO, is one of the worst things to happen to the RTS genre. The game isn't about being able to click the mouse the most precisely.

[edit: missed a word]